A Long List of Coincidences!

by aiyoyo 11.01.12 10:05

I suggest it might be good idea to keep coincidences linking to the mccanns case in one thread for easy reference.

Is team mccanns going to say "There is a wholly innocence explanation to these coincidences........?"

Got this from Joanna Morais site. Hope she does not mind.

It was Marinho e Pinto, the actual head of the Portuguese Lawyer's Order - lawyer & churnalist in 2005 - who wrote the article in the Expresso newspaper, where the first pictures of Leonor Cipriano bruised eyes were published - at that time those pictures were under judicial secrecy, which raises several questions. (http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/marinho-pinto-justifying-his-presence.html)

It was also Marinho Pinto who - in a unprecedented move - demanded for the Lawyer's Order & himself to be constituted as an "assistant" in the 2009 trial of the 5 PJ officers accused of allegedly "torturing" Leonor Cipriano so he could not be called as a witness over those photos, as was requested by the defence lawyers. (http://www1.ionline.pt/interior/index.php?p=news-print&idNota=29291).

It was also Marinho Pinto who wrote an article through the Lawyer's Order bulletin in 2009 defending José Socrates, affirming that the anonymous letter that involved the former prime minister in the Freeport scandal was manipulated by the Judiciary Police. (http://www.jn.pt/PaginaInicial/Nacional/Interior.aspx?content_id=1182816).

It was Marinho Pinto's daughter, Barbara, who works in Rogério Alves (the McCanns lawyer)and Jerónimo Martins (the vice president of the Lawyer's Order General Council) law office, who defended an alleged victim of "torture" - a suspect of theft - against 3 PJ officers; where for the second time Marinho Pinto used the Lawyer's Order as an assistant. The former President of the Order António Pires said at the time: this is “regrettable under an ethical point of view. There may not be a legal incompatibility, but there is a moral incompatibility”. Curiously, one of the PJ officers was Tavares de Almeida, who was part of the investigation to the Maddie case. (http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/11/president-of-order-supports-his.html)

And finally in 2010, Marinho Pinto supported Isabel Duarte's list (the McCanns media lawyer) in the elections to the Lawyer's Order Superior Council - Isabel lost the election but he didn't, unfortunately, and was re-elected for the triennium 2011-2013. (http://www.publico.pt/Sociedade/antonio-marinho-e-pinto-reeleito-bastonario-da-ordem-dos-advogados_1468368)

by jd 11.01.12 10:23

I agree there should be a topic which just lists the coincidences and another topic which just lists the contradictions, this will also help people not familiar with the facts just how appalling they are, and prove what a big con this all is. Both topics should have a sticky so it stays at the top of the section and not get lost

by **tigger** 11.01.12 10:29

Perhaps a list of the people coincidentally in PdL at the same time which some connection to the McCs. ?
Stella has a list.

Then the JT/Murat Devon/Burgau connections?

Then the individual Murat connections?

Then the media people such as Lori Campbell so soon on the spot.

Then GB visiting Leicester police station and FSS, both suffering terminal memory loss afterwards.

Then the coincidental connections between GB/GB's brother/GMcC.

by jd 11.01.12 10:34

Yes make this the 3rd list...maybe create a separate section for these lists. Not for discussion, but simple lists of facts which can be read very quickly and show the scam that this is. When put together people understand more clearly. We can all just add to them over time

by **tigger** 11.01.12 10:38

jd wrote:Yes make this the 3rd list...maybe create a separate section for these lists. Not for discussion, but simple lists of facts which can be read very quickly and show the scam that this is. When put together people understand more clearly. We can all just add to them over time

Absolutely! It's too easy to go off topic.

by russiandoll 11.01.12 14:36

“One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.”
Kate McCann
(in MADELEINE, by Kate McCann, published in 2011 by Bantam Press, pg. 328)

by sijm 11.01.12 20:29

One thing that was Tweeted on Twitter recently was.

When Isabel Duerte was being interviiewed by the media outside the last Libel hearing, she made a strange reference to photographs relating to Madeleine as new evidence.

When she was asked if these photographs were of Madeleine, she stated (Yes, some shocking!)

What did she mean shocking, had they at that time seen photographs of Madeleine demised or in trouble, why did she not tell us what she meant instead of telling the reporter when asked ( It does'nt matter!) with a wave of her hand.

But it does matter if those photographs of Madeleine were shocking, they The McCann Lawyers should have revealed them or was it more profitable to shut up about it to keep the fund open and the Libel claims mounting up to squeeze more money out of those kept in the dark about this new evidence.

Surely this information is of public interest, the Madeleine fund being made up of public donations to find Madeleine

Its all there on the video of the interview.

by **tigger** 12.01.12 9:16

Matthew Freud heads the PR co. which is involved in the Galaxy book awards.

It's interesting she didn't get anything, especially after her 'woman of the year?' or 'most admired woman of the year award - something like that.

The PR - the Freud connection - apart from the fact that Beynton invented spin - is significant.

by jd 12.01.12 9:35

When Isabel Duerte was being interviiewed by the media outside the last Libel hearing, she made a strange reference to photographs relating to Madeleine as new evidence.

When she was asked if these photographs were of Madeleine, she stated (Yes, some shocking!)

Was she referring to pictures taken before May 3rd 2007 or after?

by sijm 12.01.12 19:07

Isabel Duerte when outside Lisbon 's last libel hearing, stated when prompted by the media about the new evidence they had just seen.

Duerte said, It is only now my clients have seen this evidence, only now they have seen them, this was in reference to the evidence they had just seen and referred to those shocking photographs of Madeleine.

She also added the Lawyers will have to get together to find out what is going on?

by **PeterMac** 12.01.12 21:42

“Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: 'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action'.”

by Advocatus 13.01.12 0:21

tigger wrote:
jd wrote:Yes make this the 3rd list...maybe create a separate section for these lists. Not for discussion, but simple lists of facts which can be read very quickly and show the scam that this is. When put together people understand more clearly. We can all just add to them over time

Absolutely! It's too easy to go off topic.

Hwllo all

Have any of you researched angiirfan's site?

Google

Angiirfan

Then

Mccann

S/he is a genius at putting it all together, but is concentrating on the far bigger picture.

by jd 13.01.12 0:31

sijm wrote:Isabel Duerte when outside Lisbon 's last libel hearing, stated when prompted by the media about the new evidence they had just seen.

Duerte said, It is only now my clients have seen this evidence, only now they have seen them, this was in reference to the evidence they had just seen and referred to those shocking photographs of Madeleine.

She also added the Lawyers will have to get together to find out what is going on?

Thanks for this sijm. So what Isabel Duerte is saying is that 'new' pictures have come to light which she interprets as being 'new' that were taken after 3rd May 2007 and implies they are of a graphic & sick nature. This then means according to her, is that someone has Maddie and has taken them. But do we believe anything a member of the mccann team says?

by sijm 13.01.12 13:01

I take your point jd about the Mcs lies But I wondered if they had seen a photograph that a tweeter Oddityfinder said he had sent to the review team, mayb there is something to this claim that he says he has an image of a human form on Praia da Luz beach,

Apart from that, with ref to that 19309 Cats system number linked to the Mcs, I have noticed in one or two of the pictures, poor little Emilie (one of the Mcs twins) had a really bad swollen and bruised top lip. which I first thought was a slight defect but on zooming in it looked like an injury.

This could of course be perfectly innocent children are notorious for accidents in the home (all the more reason for not leaving them on their own) but if that Cat number does exist I hope the authorities looked into this very nasty injury.

by jd 13.01.12 13:20

From my understanding, the files for gerrys CAT number have all been deleted and it is only a reference now (funny that!)

I have read a lot of analyse on other forums & blogs of the amount of alleged bruises on kate and Maddie. Apparently if you zoom right in on the Tennis Girl photo her legs are allegedly covered in bruises as well as her arms. And there are ones analysed on kate where on zooming in you can see allegedly bruises on the top of her arms. After seeing and reading the analyses there was logic to it all

by Guest 13.01.12 13:21

sijm wrote:I take your point jd about the Mcs lies But I wondered if they had seen a photograph that a tweeter Oddityfinder said he had sent to the review team, mayb there is something to this claim that he says he has an image of a human form on Praia da Luz beach,

Apart from that, with ref to that 19309 Cats system number linked to the Mcs, I have noticed in one or two of the pictures, poor little Emilie Amelie (one of the Mcs twins) had IMO a really bad swollen and bruised top lip. which I first thought was a slight defect but on zooming in it looked IMO like an injury.

This could of course be perfectly innocent children are notorious for accidents in the home (all the more reason for not leaving them on their own) but if that Cat number does exist I hope the authorities looked into this very nasty injury.

sijm, can you please be very careful when stating something as fact. There is no proof that Amelie is showing any injuries, in any of the photos.

by jd 13.01.12 13:23

I will try to find the pictures I saw which were zoomed in. I have read a lot about this too on a number of different blogs/forums

by sijm 13.01.12 13:52

Hello Stella.

Just want to say there is proof of such an injury or maybe little Emelie had had an operation, but the photograph I saved definately

proves there is an abnormal swelling and bruising to her top lip.

by Guest 13.01.12 14:19

sijm wrote:Hello Stella.

Just want to say there is proof of such an injury or maybe little Emelie had had an operation, but the photograph I saved definately

proves there is an abnormal swelling and bruising to her top lip.

With all due respect sijm, unless you were physically there which I doubt, when the photo was taken, or you are the owner of the original photograph, you cannot make a statement like that just based on what you see. Photo manipulation is so advanced these days, no one can be sure of what they see. Not unless they are police photos of course. big grin

The photo you have might suggest something, but it does not prove anything. With Carter Ruck watching on a daily basis now, can you please refrain from making such accusations. Could you also please note the correct spelling of the child's name, it's Amelie.

by sijm 13.01.12 14:50

Dear Stella.

I am not in the habit of making false statements and have never made any false accusations about anyone, infact I suggested the child may have had a slight defect or had an accident NO OTHER CLAIM WAS MADE other than it is foolish to leave little children alone.
I also merely pointed out,the fact that a photograph showing that little girl with a swollen bruised lip was published on the net and I have proof of it.

Am I too believe that some of the photographs posted on this forum by the team must come under the same scrutiny and suspicion by us who join, or are you exempt from such accusations that photographs have been tampered with.

I do not have a clue how to use the photoshop tools and I take offence in the suggestion that I maybe the one that (if ithe photo was tampered with) did the deed, a very difficult procedure I would think to perform, by the way there was more than one photograph where this little girl appeared with this imperfection as jd pointed out was on the web, a fact that thousand of viewers would be aware of, maybe even took note as I did. after all a little child has gone missing and we, the public want to help.

I am sorry if I have offended anyone but my point was, how foolish it is to leave small children on their own for any lenght of time, accidents do happen even when adults are present, so it is all the more foolish to leave them alone in my opinion.

by Guest 13.01.12 15:29

sijm wrote:Dear Stella.

I am not in the habit of making false statements and have never made any false accusations about anyone, infact I suggested the child may have had a slight defect or had an accident NO OTHER CLAIM WAS MADE other than it is foolish to leave little children alone.
I also merely pointed out,the fact that a photograph showing that little girl with a swollen bruised lip was published on the net and I have proof of it.
That may be so, but it is not proof of what you are suggesting and from a legal point of view and in light of Tony Bennett's current position, we have to be very careful what is suggested. Do you agree?

Am I too believe that some of the photographs posted on this forum by the team must come under the same scrutiny and suspicion by us who join, or are you exempt from such accusations that photographs have been tampered with.
Every post is treated the same way here. If you are stating something as fact and do not have evidence to back it up, then yes, if we feel that legally it could harm the forum, we will ask for it to be amended or removed.

I do not have a clue how to use the photoshop tools and I take offence in the suggestion that I maybe the one that (if ithe photo was tampered with) did the deed, No one was suggesting it was you who tampered with anything a very difficult procedure I would think to perform, by the way there was more than one photograph where this little girl appeared with this imperfection as jd pointed out was on the web, a fact that thousand of viewers would be aware of, maybe even took note as I did. after all a little child has gone missing and we, the public want to help. We sure do, but jumping to conclusions with regard to physical abuse, is not a healthy way to go about it.

I am sorry if I have offended anyone but my point was, how foolish it is to leave small children on their own for any lenght of time, accidents do happen even when adults are present, so it is all the more foolish to leave them alone in my opinion.
You have not offended anyone, but you must take responsibility for your posts and where possible we need to make sure they are not stepping over the line where Carter Ruck are concerned. Don't you agree?

by sijm 13.01.12 15:57

Hello Stella.

I totally agree one hundred percent, why do I feel we are living in a BUG brother World.

One more question, how can one prove a photograph is genuine with all this photoshop thing going on, its all very depressing.

Are there ways of telling photographs are authentic and would the police accept them as evidence, how would they know?

In my hay days photographs were the front line in evidence against crime, my father was a policeman many years ago.

by **tigger** 13.01.12 16:33

Advocatus wrote:
tigger wrote:
jd wrote:Yes make this the 3rd list...maybe create a separate section for these lists. Not for discussion, but simple lists of facts which can be read very quickly and show the scam that this is. When put together people understand more clearly. We can all just add to them over time

Absolutely! It's too easy to go off topic.

Hwllo all

Have any of you researched angiirfan's site?

Google

Angiirfan

Then

Mccann

S/he is a genius at putting it all together, but is concentrating on the far bigger picture.

I've just checked over Aangirfan's site, but surprisingly she seems totally in favour of an abduction to order by Belgian paedophiles.
She shows the photographs of two teenage girls 'who were abducted to order' by Dutroux, but the point here is that these 'orders' didn't concern specific girls, just any girl of the right age. Dutroux's network did probably include a judge and possibly more of the same, but it's not a comparison, nor indeed anything to do with Maddie's disappearance.
Dutroux kidnapped girls mainly from the Eastern Bloc countries. Nobody even missed them.
The statistic of 13000? children going missing in Belgium has to be rubbish, I'd like to see proof of that and as for the 'clear' sighting of the girl in Holland who told the shop assistant that the woman wasn't her mother .... well, I'm right out of fairy tales. The McCanns had no interest either, knowing what they did in any case.

by Invinoveritas 13.01.12 17:11

snip from tigger: The statistic of 13000? children going missing in Belgium has to be rubbish, end snip,

according to the Belgian Organisation "Child Fokus", in 2007 there were 2928 new cases of missing children in Belgium, this implies approx. 3 children a day going missing with a population of 10,5 million, these are also Interpol Statistics

by **tigger** 13.01.12 17:37

Invinoveritas wrote:snip from tigger: The statistic of 13000? children going missing in Belgium has to be rubbish, end snip,

according to the Belgian Organisation "Child Fokus", in 2007 there were 2928 new cases of missing children in Belgium, this implies approx. 3 children a day going missing with a population of 10,5 million, these are also Interpol Statistics

Entirely my fault, misread a nought. 1300 children were kidnapped between 1991 and 1996.
Imo that still doesn't mean kidnap for sexual purposes as the great majority of these events are by family members, estranged husbands etc. Many children are found again. This number would also include children who run away from home. There is little evidence that every one of the above was an actual kidnap for pedophiles.
I don't like that site much, it juxta positions a pick and mix set of subjects. I don't think the McCann case has anything to do with Dutroux. Doubtless the McCanns knew about the Dutroux case and used it to shore up their story.
A proportion of Belgian women have married Maroccan or Turkish or other often Islamic men. When the marriage breaks up, it happens quite frequently that the father kidnaps the child to grow up with his family in his own country. So although the quoted percentage of 3 children a day is very high for the country, it doesn't take into account the number of children whose whereabouts are soon established.

Nice to see you back, Invinoveritas, on the ball as ever!